List Work Items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details like cursor pagination and fetchAll, which go beyond annotations. It could describe fetchAll limits or other quirks, but overall adds relevant context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and covers key capabilities without extra words. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description covers the basics: namespace, filtering, pagination. It omits details about return format and ordering, but those are partially covered by the sort parameter. Mostly complete for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates filtering by type and state and mentions pagination, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It provides a summary that is helpful but not transformative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists work items within a namespace, specifies filtering by type and state, and mentions cursor pagination and fetchAll. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issues or get_work_item by covering a broader set of work item types and pagination.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates when to use the tool (to list work items with filtering), but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative siblings. For example, it doesn't suggest get_issues for issues only. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.